The Hot Blog

The Brokeback Box Office train is chugging along just fine. Go Brokeback!

Lionsgate is overestimating Hostel's Sunday. Expect the actuals to be lower.

Narnia at 300m? Anyone??

yeah Wrectum I'll buy 300M or 350M even. I read the book probably 1000 times so what's to stop many 30-nothings like me and others from seeing the movie several times and dragging new people and their children to it as well. And I am not religious (I did only pay to see it once). Word of mouth isn't hurting Narnia.

I hope Hostel is overrated. Bloody awful, no pun intended.

I use my word of mouth to hurt Narna any chance I get. I remembered when seeing it that I never liked the book either. But I liked Hostel, so I'm atypical.

"Dick and Jane" is really reaping the benefits of being the only non-family comedy out there. I'm surprised by that hold.

Just noticed Geisha's gross is very similar to Pride and Prejudice, must be a sting to the backside of MOAG definitely.

When watching MOAG it reminded me of the US BO failure that was the reinterpretation of Great Expectations (Cuaron, 1998)--great kids in the first half and some beautiful scenes then the stilted artificial adults & their fake dialog ruined the second half.

Jeff why would you want to slay the lion when there are endless shitty movies to badmouth? A Uwe Boll Dysproduction (think dysfunctional-in-all-aspects production) you like over my sister Tilda Swinton Ice Queen? Ok, brother. I forgive you this time.

Props to the UK folk who infused Narnia with a good dose of Post-Christian paganism in the allegory (though CS Lewis would be offended. He insisted his Chronicles were not allegory), this has meant it isn't too Christian for non-Christians and Christian enough for those who are churchy.

According to Klady, movies "experienced a significant downturn in attendance" during 2005. Excuse me, but isn't that a slump?

What paganism do you speak of? All I saw was a Jesus-lion who speaks of sacrifice and virtue, then chews off Swinton's face. Oh, maybe that's the paganism.

You're confusing the American huckster (Roth) with the German flim-flam man (Boll).

scuse me...yes Roth of Cabin Fever. Probably they seem all to similar to me. My apologies.

Pagan symbols throughout Jeffy. The Prod design person I believe did Prd design for ROmero which makes sense re. pantheist/pagan symbols.

Not trying to start another talk about the slump, but, inspired by the horrible combination of movies coming out this weekend (Hostel/Grandma's Boy/BloodRayne), I went looking for the 2006 release schedule, and couldn't help but wonder...

I agree that the so-called slump should not have been taken so seriously, specially in the US. However, I believe that internationally the downturn was a bit more serious (here in Brazil, the drop was noticeable, I remember reading something about ticket sales being off 20%, but I could be wrong about the percentage). Well, nothing that a good slate of movies couldn't fix.

That is why I was so shocked when I checked the release schedule for the next few months. While last year the January-March period had at least 2 surefire hits for international audiences (Hitch and Constantine), and a variety of movies with at least some potential to connect with countries other than the US (quality aside: Robots, Ring 2, The Pacifier, Hide and Seek, Miss Congeniality 2, Elektra, Hostage, Racing Stripes... Gosh, even Son of the Mask had some chance), 2006 looks horrible for overseas markets. I could be wrong, but the only assured success from these first three months is Ice Age 2, and of all the movies to be released until March, I can only see mid-level international appeal in Underworld: Evolution, Firewall, and Final Destination 2, plus V for Vendetta, who should score in some markets, but not all of them.

Some of the titles scheduled just don't have big selling points outside of the US. These days, when international box office can make or break a movie, it is poor judgement of the studios to not take those audiences into account.

Is Klady on drugs? From his report:
"As Hostel assumed instant hit status, the sentimental comedy-drama Grandma’s Boys goes into the record books as 2006’s first commercial casualty."

Sendimental comedy-drama?? I saw Grandma's Boys this weekend, and trust me on this, the correct discription is "drama with comedic undertones".

Grandma's Boy is actually the touching story of a 35-year-old forced to live with his grandmother after being kicked out of his sex and drug den? Wha?

Incidentally, let's start the official 2006 box office boom...based on the estimated Top 10, the first weekend is up 5% from the same weekend last year even though the top movie (Hostel) didn't make as much as the Top 2 (Meet the Fockers, White Noise) last year.
I think a lot of that has to do with the hold of the holiday films and the fact that a movie needs to make at least $4 million even to get into the Top 12. That's pretty amazing, actually.

well, box office is up 5% this weekend, are we looking at a DVD slump this year?

here's a question for box officer's, War of the Worlds did about $230 mill. with a summer release. King King did (will do) about $220-$230 domestic with a winter release (which tend to do less than summer). WOTW cost about $150. King King cost about $200. With marketing, add another $50 mill to each. Subtract Spielberg and Jackson percentage points from each 20%. Subtract actor points from each: Cruise 20%, King Kong - 0%. Sounds to me like they might be similar money-makers, except Kong will be seen as a loser while WOTW seen as a winner. Am I missing something here?

Kong had higher expectations.

Kong was considered the presumptive winner of the holiday boxoffice crown. War of the Worlds was not.

Given that both films seem to have barely broke even I suspect their percentage points are much too high. Maybe in the future it would be smarter to base such points on how well the film actually does at the box office?

When foreign/TV/DVD income is added in I suspect both films will have done better than 'broke even'. Remember that War is now Tom Cruise's highest-grossing film ever.

Finally got to see Munich this afternoon. Sad that so much of the debate about this film has already happened and now it is underperforming.

I'll talk about it more in another forum when the topic is more appropriate.

Nevertheless, even though it has flaws (the last twenty minutes do not work) it is certainly one of the most haunting films I have seen in recent years. Certainly a film that both sides of the debate could see good and bad in.

I am still amazed at how fast Spielberg can push his 'output' and maintain the quality he does.

Scorsese takes three years between projects and is not doing what Spielberg is doing at the rate he is.

I hope the returns on Munich do not dissuade him from making more films like this in the future.

OK, let's cut to the chase: I have a question for everybody who posts here: If you were an Academy voter, and could vote for only ONE film -- no ties, just ONE film (and if you list more than one, we'll all make fun of you, and make rude remarks about you) -- what would YOU say was the best movie of 2005?

Munich (even including the last 20 minutes).

A History of Violence

Depends - If I go by films released in the US in 2005 calender then "Mysterious Skin" but I haven't seen a whole tonne like BBM, Match Point, GN&GL, Munich, Producers, etc.

However, in fairness outside of your question, if I go by films released in Australia in the 2005 calender, then definitely "Birth".

I don't think I'd be a typical Oscar voter, alas.

Continued solid numbers for Brokeback, Narnia and Dick & Jane (all things considered). Narnia could easily get to $280-$300mil and if they have a another ad campaign (like Potter's "see it again" thing) then they could add a few extra tens of millions.

It was indeed the three hour and seven minute run time that killed the beast (King Kong) methinks. That and over-hype.

On the matter of War of the Worlds - am I the only one who thought the film by all rights should've been able to go much higher than $230mil? That's only $20mil more than Wedding Crashers! And this was a sci-fi movies about earth's destruction by aliens (not that you'd know it because it was all just tomtomtom) starring Tom Cruise, directed by Spielberg. oh, well...

Brokeback Mountain.

Good Night, and Good Luck.

I work at a GE office in the Midwest, and this morning I had a conversation with TWO men, both spoke as though they were Christians, who saw Narnia this past weekend. Neither had been to a movie for over two years (they didn't even see Passion!)...and obviously in 2004 I had multiple such conversations with people about PotC. There seems to be something to this church marketing.

This begs a question I initially asked on the blogs right after the Superman trailer came out in November and was told to wait to see how Narnia does. Given that Narnia is likely to out perform Harry Potter 4, I think it's a good time to re-ask it:

If I were take the name Kal-el out of Brando's voiceover and hand out its text out on the street, 9 out of 10 people would assume that was taken from straight from the Bible.
Should Warners hire that marketing firm that did Passion and Narnia?
I think the story in Donner's Superman made it open to such an marketing approach. Assuming Singer is on the same page as Donner...and he's given every indication that he is...he might be missing a huge market if they don't bang on the doors of churches. And WB could play it just like Disney did...only this time it would ring a little more truthful...and say that Superman is not a "Christian" movie. There are so many movies that could easily be target-marketed to Christians as well as a broad audience: The Matrix, Shawshank, Cool Hand Luke, heck, maybe even Harry Potter 7!

"Should Warners hire that marketing firm that did Passion and Narnia? "

I'm sure they're too busy working on DaVinci Code.

BTW, it seems like Brokeback is quickly catching up to Munich even though it probably won't be in as many theatres for a while. Seems like BBM could make the same amount as Munich next week, so it should be passing it soon enough.

A week into 2006 and we're talking slumps?

One movie? Honestly - Crash. (Let the ridicule begin).

Narnia is going hit 300 mill. Get ready for the sequels.

Wow, this has not been a predictable box office at all. It seems like a very strong possibility that Brokeback Mountain will have $50 million by the time Oscar nominations are announced.

And the gap between Narnia and Kong is actually widening. I think it will actually break $300 million when all is said and done.

And the strangest one of them all? The increasing likelihood that Scarlett Johansen's Woody Allen film will outgross her Michael Bay film. Don't laugh, with enough awards buzz, it could easily happn.

"Should Warners hire that marketing firm that did Passion and Narnia?
I'm sure they're too busy working on DaVinci Code."

Has Columbia hired Motive Marketing to do the Da Vinci Code...that doesn't sound right. Although there are Christians who appreciate the DVC, I highly doubt the core audience that Motive is getting to line up for movies like Passion, Narnia, or Polar Express, will appreciate the DVC's re-visioning of Christianity.

Disney had a very tricky thing to do with Narnia--marketing it to the hard-core "Christians" without alienating the fantasy geeks, and they pulled it off. The problem I think Disney will have with sequels is that LWW is the only one of the Narnia books that is a universally beloved cultural touchstone, and the later Narnia books can get a little turgid storyline-wise.

Two side points:

1. Sony could put two hours of frogs humping on screen under the title "The Da Vinci Code," and it would still open to 40-50M.
2. "Match Point" could have added 5-7M to its grossing potential by getting Scarlett to doff her bra in one of the sex scenes.

One Film: Capote

Brokeback Mountain.

PS: MattM, Match Point could add my $10 if Jonathan Rhys Meyers took his pants off. Let's keep our sexism balanced.

For me.... The Constant Gardener.
(But I ain't seen Munich or BBM or Kong or Cinderella Man)
Runner up: History of Violence

And I know this was much earlier in this string...but the marketing for King Kong was closer to $100 mill than $50 mill. I heard the NY Premeire cost something like $15 mill, but that's just a rumor.

And yeah, I think the DaVinci Code is going to kill next summer. I bet it outgrosses X3 and Superman

Very true hepwa.

I saw Match Point with my special lady friend and she nearly fainted.

DaVinci will do well, but remember a smash hit book gets many fewer people to read it than a smash hit movie.

I know many people who have read the DaVinci Code who are very atheistic in their beliefs and just thought it was poorly written, pulp tripe.
I have read it also and concur. Poor history and Browns 'earth goddess beliefs' aside, it is very poorly written. Do not count on everyone who read the book to see the flick.

It will be a hit to be sure...but it will not outgross Superman, which good or bad most likely will do $250 in its sleep. Also do not underestimate the box office potential of Apocalypto which as would be expected most are not even talking about in their 2006 projections.

Then again...maybe we should underestimate it. Worked before for Mel and Narnia.

Good point about Apocolypto, I wouldn't underestimate it either. I think the DaVinci Code could turn out to be similar to "The Firm", another huge best seller with a big movie cast that did good, but not gigantic Box Office. Or it could be a great thriller and have big repeat business. I thought the book was a good page turer, but it's definitely light weight material. And I think the movie will be as well.

I don't think Superman is going to do that well at all. The images from it look just awful. The big media blitz is only 4 short months away, and I could change my tune real quick, but for now that might be the first loser of the year.

"The Firm" was rated R, though, wasn't it? Whereas "Da Vinci" is a solid four-quadrant (presumably PG-13) summer adventure movie. I think "Da Vinci" will attract a lot more people that have never read the book than "The Firm" was able to.

I think The Firm is an apt comparison to DaVinci, but National Treasure is much more obvious and better.

Both those films have crappy Indiana Jones plots, A-list stars, and major studio backing. The difference is DaVinci has a summer release and the mega-controversy surrounding it. Those two elements together should make DaVinci double NT's $170 domestic. Never underestimate the power of controversy (a lesson learned from Passion, F9/11, and to a lesser extent Narnia)...and Ron Howard isn't shying away from controversy, he's going to make a 2hr+ film that rips on the Church's teachings. *Sigh* Oh, little Opie. How I miss you.

Anyway, I'm sure Singer will ensure Superman is a great film...but I wonder if there is a fan base to justify it's budget. Remember, we all expected there to be a fanbase for Kong too, and low and behold, it wasn't there. That's why I'm wondering if Motive Marketing would be a good way for WB to go since it would expand the fanbase and perhaps give the movie legs.

Also,

Much of the DaVinci controversy is stuff that has already been out there for 2 years. I have already had my DaVinci is full o' crap debates and won handily.

Hard not to when the head of Oxford's history department says it is junk.

It is an odd one though. I do know many nominal Christians who own a copy. They see it as a yarn.

DaVinci's big hate-on is for Roman Catholics and Howard has said he will let that element of the book shine.

Who woulda thought lil' Opie Cunningham would make a film based on a book that endorses much of the same anti-Catholic bigotry and stereotypes spouted by the Ku Klux Klan of several generations ago or even from Elizabeth's England?

Summer 2006 Heavyweight Smackdown!:

Superman makes world safe from Lex Luthor!

X-Men makes world safe from Magneto!

Crokett and Tubbs make world safe from Drug Cartels!

Tom Hanks makes world safe from evil, snaggle toothed, self flagellating Roman Catholics who want to oppress the 'earth goddess Gaia' so she can return for the 'Divine Feminine'.

The Grandma's Boy opening must rank among the very worst openings ever with a 2000+ theater count. It's no Pluto Nash, but it's close.

The thing about contraversial movies is this: Everyone wants to see it to ensure it fullfills their side of the argument, pro or con. Hence, why some of them make a lot of money.

But I really doubt the movie will be THAT contraversial. I bet there'll be just as many comments about the film's villains as there will be about Tom Hank's new hairstyle.

Tom, we know your hair is curly. It's never bothered us before, wtf man?

I find myself weirdly intrigued by the hair. He must have seen Audrey Tatou's wardrobe tests and thought, "I can match that."

One movie: "A History of Violence."

As for "The DaVinci Code," I have this sneaking feeling its going to be more "A Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" than "Jurassic Park."

Pride & Prejudice

Winning a debate over the accuracy of The DaVinci Code is like winning a race against an amputee.

Personally I found the sidenotes about the pieces of art and architecture more interesting than the religious stuff.

I even prefer Angels and Demons over The Da Vinci Code...except for the ending, which was terrible. I tried reading Dan Brown's Digital Fortress, and I couldn't get halfway through I was so bored. So, the movie could go either way. But if National Treasure can be that big of a hit, whose to say.

Brokeback Mountain

When I saw King Kong on Christmas Day, the trailer for Da Vinci Code came on, and there was a young woman sitting next to me who was practically writhing with delight and anticipation. So I took that as a sign that there's a pretty substantial fan base for it. And National Treasure was SOOOO bad that the Ron Howard version will be sure to mop up.

The book is a work of fiction. Not a non fiction book on historical accuracy.

"It seems like a very strong possibility that Brokeback Mountain will have $50 million by the time Oscar nominations are announced."

Aren't the Nominations three weeks away? It could probably get to $50mil the week after when certain people go "okay, NOW i'll see it". And it could very weel keep playing after the Oscars with decent box-office.

On The Da Vinci Code, Haven't read the book, don't really care to, however I am interested in the movie. It does have Audrey Taotou though, so...

Superman I think will see similar grosses to the original X-Men. Probably more because these movies are more popular now than then, but I can see everyone expecting greatness and getting less. Wait a minute, that scenario reminds me of King Kong. Hmmm... did we learn NOTHING from Kong?

Ron Howard is remaking East of Eden. My disgust is duly registered.

I predict Ron Howard's East of Eden will be released in November of whatever year (2007?) and not June. Gotta win those awards!

camel u may be one of the few in the world who has not read the book. the thing is a phenomenon. inspired casting with hanks who u know always comes to play.

"The book is a work of fiction. Not a non fiction book on historical accuracy."

Actually, the book is a fictional account of something the author believes is true.

That still means it's a work of fiction. He may believe it. Maybe JK Rowling believes that there are Wizards and Wizardry schools. Doesn't take away from the narrative.

I understand the backlash again Da Vinci, but I don't think it's very warranted. The book presents some fairly compelling and well-researched evidence concerning the Catholic faith. There's no quest the narrative is fiction, but it is not a whimsically created thing either a la Harry Potter. Crichton is a closer comparison and even then Dan Brown is slightly more rigorous if not as good a writer.

While there are still a few contenduhs I haven't seen yet (e.g., MATCH POINT, MUNICH), far and away the picture of the year for me is GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.

It'll be interesting to see if DAVINCI CODE gets a PG-13. For those who haven't read the book (relax, no real spoiler here), it begins with the discovery of a nude corpse. For reasons that would be a spoiler, I can only say that it's pretty imperative that ALL of the body be seen. How they get around this should be fascinating.

my guess is that he keeps on his underwear. Or they "cover" that area via "Austin Powers".

In the trailer there is a big light that cover his bathing suit area. But that's just the trailer, I'm sure the movie will be different.

Da Vinci COde is a great novel. But that's what it is. A made up story by a very talented author. Whoever thinks it's 100% true or fact based is out of their minds.

Should be a good movie too. Howard and Hanks. Good team.

I like to assume a director with the talent and skill level of Ronnie Howard can pull it off with relative ease.

If the movie fails, I imagine Hanks would get more of the blame than Ronnie. "It was all miscasting," they'll write.

But after reading the book I can see the movie being a great entertainment or an Art History lecture with car chases.

If it was an art history lecture it wouldn't be this successful.

I remember all the Hanks miscast stuff on about five other films too. And they all worked out okay.

I wouldn't call it a lecture, but it does make you feel smart with its short chapters and catchy revisionist theories. That, I would say, is the book's appeal...it flatters you.

Palmtree,

The allegations against Roman Catholics are a lie straight out of depression era KKK 'anti-papist' literature. What it says about the Opus Dei as a murderous organization is like calling your local Rotary Club members murderers.

I'm sad you bought it. Crichton's novels are filled with foot-notes, bibliographies and references. Brown has none. Nada. Zip. Just
his 'pagan earth goddess' word.

If that's good enough for you...I am sorry you are so uncurious about your fellow man. I am also sorry, although it is their right, that two of my favourite entertainers (Howard & Hanks) are a part of this travesty.

I rarely support movements against films. I think the theatres that cancelled Brokeback Mountain are childlish and immateur. In this case, I do support Roman Catholics speaking loud against Sony pictures to counter the bigotry of Da Vinci.

Crichton is a genuis. One of the smartest men out there. Brown has nothing on Crichton. Nothing.

Sanchez, raise your standards, man!

Nicol, I agree with your assessment of Opus Dei, and I genuinely wish this were completely fictionalized instead of partially. I do not mean an endorsement of Da Vinci as an attack on religion. My primary interest was in the art history aspect, because this actually is interesting from a mythological, Joseph Campbell perspective (if you're into that). What I meant by "rigorous" is that Brown sticks with relatively realistic situations in Da Vinci whereas Crichton uses his imagination more (dinosaurs, nanobots, etc.). Crichton has probably got more brainpower per synapse and I've read the majority of his works to know that...again, not intended as a knock on Mr. ER.

Uncurious about my fellow man, huh? I hope you read this just to reconsider what I meant.

And one more thing...no, I'm not familiar with the reference to "depression era KKK 'anti-papist' literature." But I am curious as to what my fellow man means by this...weren't the KKK as anti-goddess as anyone?

"That still means it's a work of fiction. He may believe it. Maybe JK Rowling believes that there are Wizards and Wizardry schools. Doesn't take away from the narrative."

Sure. You could say the same thing about the Left Behind series. :)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: